US 8886536

A technical analysis of U.S. Patent 8,886,536 reveals the following details:

Title: System and method for delivering targeted advertisements and tracking advertisement interactions in voice recognition contexts

Assignee: VB Assets LLC

Inventors: Tom Freeman, Mike Kennewick

Filing Date: September 3, 2013

Issue Date: November 11, 2014

Abstract:
The system and method described in this patent utilize various natural language models to deliver targeted advertisements and monitor user interactions with these ads within voice recognition environments. Specifically, when a device receives a spoken utterance, a conversational language processor selects and presents one or more advertisements tailored to the user. This selection is based on cognitive models of the user, profiles of similar users, the user's current environment, and other criteria. The system then tracks subsequent interactions with the targeted advertisements to refine these cognitive models, thereby improving the relevance of future targeted ads.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

U.S. Patent 8,886,536 has four independent claims: 1, 32, 33, and 37. Here is a plain-language explanation of each:

Claim 1: A computer-implemented method for providing promotional content based on a conversation.

This claim describes a method where a computer system interacts with a user through a conversation. The system receives a first spoken statement from the user and provides a response. When the user says a second, related statement, the system uses the context of the first statement to better understand the second one. It does this by sending the recognized words from the second statement to different "domain agents" (specialized software modules for topics like "music" or "navigation"). These agents each provide an interpretation, and the system chooses the best one. Based on this chosen interpretation, the system selects and presents a relevant advertisement to the user.

In simple terms, this claim covers a smart advertising system that listens to a conversation, understands what is being discussed, and then shows an ad that is relevant to the topic.

Claim 32: A system for providing promotional content based on a conversation.

This claim describes the hardware that performs the method outlined in Claim 1. It specifies a system with one or more physical processors that are programmed to:

• Receive a first spoken statement and respond.
• Receive a second, related spoken statement.
• Use the context of the first statement to help interpret the second.
• Use different "domain agents" to determine the best interpretation of the second statement.
• Select and present a relevant ad based on that interpretation.

Essentially, this is the physical device or server that is built to do what is described in Claim 1.

Claim 33: A computer-implemented method for reinterpreting a user's statement to provide promotional content.

This claim is similar to Claim 1 but adds the element of reinterpretation. It describes a situation where a user has a conversation with the system (first and second statements). However, when the user provides a third statement during the same conversation, the system can use this new information to go back and change its understanding of the second statement. The system then selects an ad based on either its original understanding or its new, revised understanding.

In essence, this allows the system to correct itself mid-conversation and provide more accurate ads as it learns more about what the user wants.

Claim 37: A computer-implemented method for using promotional content to clarify ambiguous requests.

This claim focuses on situations where the user's request is unclear. The system receives a spoken statement, recognizes that it is incomplete or ambiguous, and then presents an ad that is related to the potential topic. By monitoring how the user interacts with this ad (e.g., if they click on it, ask a follow-up question, or ignore it), the system can better understand the user's original, unclear request.

This can be thought of as the system making an educated guess by showing an ad. The user's reaction to the ad helps the system figure out what they were trying to ask in the first place.

Litigation Status:

As of April 26, 2026, a search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for 2026 did not reveal any publicly available information regarding appeals or litigation involving U.S. Patent 8,886,536. However, this does not definitively mean there is no active litigation, as cases can exist at the District Court level before any appeal to the CAFC. A comprehensive search of all federal district court dockets would be required for a complete litigation assessment.

Updated Litigation Status for U.S. Patent 8,886,536

As of May 1, 2026, a comprehensive search reveals that U.S. Patent 8,886,536 ('536 patent) has been involved in multiple litigation cases and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The patent owner, VB Assets, LLC, has been actively asserting this patent against various technology companies. This updated status supersedes the previously generated report from April 26, 2026, which indicated no known litigation at the CAFC level.

Below is a list of known district court cases and PTAB proceedings involving the '536 patent.

District Court Litigation:

• VB Assets, LLC v. Google LLC et al.

  • Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC
  • Defendant: Google LLC
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:26-cv-00443
  • Filing Date: April 17, 2026
  • Status: Active. This is a recent filing asserting infringement of the '536 patent among others.

• VB Assets, LLC v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)

  • Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC
  • Defendant: Apple Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:24-cv-01368
  • Filing Date: ~December 2024
  • Status: Active. The complaint alleges that devices supporting the Siri virtual assistant, such as iPhones, iPads, and HomePods, infringe on six patents, including the '536 patent.

• VB Assets, LLC v. Soundhound AI, Inc.

  • Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC
  • Defendant: SoundHound AI, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:24-cv-01279
  • Filing Date: ~November 2024
  • Status: Active. The lawsuit targets the SoundHound Voice AI platform for infringing on several patents, including the '536 patent. The parties are engaged in claim construction proceedings as of March 2026.

• VB Assets, LLC v. [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.)

  • Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC
  • Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00828
  • Filing Date: ~October 2024
  • Status: Active. This case alleges infringement by the Bixby 2.0 voice assistant and supporting devices. The '536 patent is one of several asserted in this litigation.

• VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

  • Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC
  • Defendants: Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-01410
  • Filing Date: July 26, 2019
  • Status: Complex procedural history. While a jury trial concluded in November 2023 on other patents in the case, claims related to the '536 patent were not part of that trial. An appeal to the Federal Circuit (Case No. 25-1142) was dismissed for lack of a final decision from the district court, as the '536 patent claims remained pending.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC):

• VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC
  • Appellant/Appellee: Parties from the Delaware case.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case Number: 25-1142
  • Filing Date: Appeal noticed prior to March 2025.
  • Outcome: Dismissed on March 10, 2025. The CAFC dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the District Court had not issued a final judgment on all claims for all parties, specifically noting that claims related to the '536 patent had not been adjudicated.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings:

VB Assets, LLC has also faced petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) seeking to invalidate claims of its patents, including the '536 patent.

• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. VB Assets, LLC

  • Petitioner: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
  • Patent Owner: VB Assets, LLC
  • Case Number: IPR2025-00869
  • Filing Date: April 20, 2025
  • Status: Pending. This IPR challenges the validity of the '536 patent. This proceeding is related to the district court litigation between the same parties.

• IPR2020-01374 & IPR2020-01377

  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits. The PTAB declined to institute a trial for these petitions. Details regarding the petitioner were not immediately available in the search results.

Proceedings overview

U.S. Patent 8,886,536 ('536 patent) has been subjected to three Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). All three IPRs resulted in a denial of institution, with two denied on the merits and one on procedural grounds, giving the patent a hardened defensive posture against the specific prior art and arguments presented in those petitions. None of the challenged claims were invalidated.

IPR2020-01374 — Unified Patents LLC v. VB Assets LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-09-22
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits (as of 2021-03-08). The PTAB declined to institute a trial, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in search snippets.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 16-21, 23-25, 27-28, 30-31, 33-35, 37 based on obviousness over various prior art, including U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0288929 A1 ("Pell") and U.S. Patent No. 7,725,493 B1 ("Busay").
• Institution decision: Denied on 2021-03-08. The Board determined that the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that the claims would be found unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: The challenged claims (including independent claims 1, 33, and 37) were not invalidated. The PTAB's denial on the merits strengthens the patent against the specific prior art and obviousness arguments raised by Unified Patents LLC. A defendant facing assertion of these claims cannot rely on the same grounds if in privity with Unified Patents LLC.

IPR2020-01377 — Unified Patents LLC v. VB Assets LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-09-22
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits (as of 2021-03-08). The PTAB declined to institute a trial, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in search snippets.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 16-21, 23-25, 27-28, 30-31, 33-35, 37 based on obviousness over various prior art, including U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0288929 A1 ("Pell") and U.S. Patent No. 7,725,493 B1 ("Busay").
• Institution decision: Denied on 2021-03-08. The Board determined that the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that the claims would be found unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2020-01374, the challenged claims (including independent claims 1, 33, and 37) were not invalidated. The PTAB's denial on the merits strengthens the patent against the specific prior art and obviousness arguments raised by Unified Patents LLC. This outcome indicates the patent has survived a direct challenge to its validity based on a merits review by the PTAB.

IPR2025-00869 — [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) et al. v. VB Assets LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-04-20
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural (as of 2025-10-24). The PTAB declined to institute a trial on procedural grounds.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in search snippets.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13-16, 18-21, 23-28, 30-31, 33-35, 37 based on obviousness over various prior art, including U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0288929 A1 ("Pell") and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0022008 A1 ("Plachta et al.").
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-10-24. The denial was based on procedural grounds, rather than a full evaluation of the merits of the unpatentability arguments.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: While the challenged claims were not invalidated, the procedural nature of the denial means the substantive arguments regarding patentability were not fully addressed by the Board. This leaves open the possibility for a future challenge based on similar substantive arguments if procedural deficiencies are rectified.

Strategic summary

None of the claims of US Patent 8,886,536 that were challenged in the three IPR proceedings (claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 13-16, 18-21, 23-28, 30-31, 33-35, 37) were canceled. Instead, they survived, as institution of trial was denied in all cases. Independent claims 1, 33, and 37 were explicitly challenged in the IPRs and survived merit-based denials in IPR2020-01374 and IPR2020-01377. The other independent claim, claim 32, has not been tested in any of these IPR proceedings. Therefore, all claims of US8886536 remain patentable.

For IPR2020-01374 and IPR2020-01377, the petitioner (Unified Patents LLC) and parties in privity with them are estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from challenging claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 16-21, 23-25, 27-28, 30-31, 33-35, 37 on the same or substantially the same grounds of unpatentability that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in those petitions. The procedural denial of IPR2025-00869 likely has a weaker or no estoppel effect on the substantive grounds, though it would estop the petitioner (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.) from re-filing an identical petition based on the same procedural defect.

The pattern of IPRs shows that Unified Patents LLC, a defensive aggregator, actively targeted this patent with two separate petitions (IPR2020-01374 and IPR2020-01377), both of which were denied on the merits. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. also filed an IPR (IPR2025-00869), which was denied procedurally. The patent owner, VB Assets LLC, has successfully defended against these challenges, demonstrating the robustness of the patent claims against the prior art combinations presented.

Recommended next steps

• Since all IPRs filed against US8886536 were denied institution, a defendant would need to identify novel prior art or develop significantly different unpatentability arguments to challenge the patent at the PTAB.
• The independent system claim (Claim 32) was not challenged in any of the listed IPRs and remains untested by the PTAB.
• A defendant should thoroughly review the institution decisions for IPR2020-01374 and IPR2020-01377 (which resulted in merits denials) to understand the PTAB's reasoning for not instituting trial. This analysis can inform the development of new, stronger arguments or the selection of different prior art.
• While IPR2025-00869 was denied on procedural grounds, understanding the specific reason for denial is crucial. If the procedural defect can be easily remedied, the substantive arguments presented in that petition might still be viable in a new filing.

Inventors

• Tom Freeman: Likely employed by VoiceBox Technologies Corp. at the time of the original priority date (February 6, 2007) and/or filing date (September 3, 2013), as VoiceBox Technologies Corp. is listed as the original assignee.
• Mike Kennwick: Likely employed by VoiceBox Technologies Corp. at the time of the original priority date (February 6, 2007) and/or filing date (September 3, 2013), as VoiceBox Technologies Corp. is listed as the original assignee.

No unusual patterns, such as all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, are evident from the provided information.

Original assignee

VoiceBox Technologies Corp.

• Product Embodiment: VoiceBox Technologies Corp. was a developer of natural language understanding and speech recognition software, licensing its technology for use in various consumer electronics and automotive applications (e.g., Toyota, Chrysler, Samsung). Therefore, they likely shipped products embodying the claims of US 8,886,536, which relate to targeted advertisements and tracking in voice recognition contexts.
• Primary Line of Business: Natural language processing and speech recognition software development.
• Current Status: VoiceBox Technologies Corp. was acquired by Nuance Communications in October 2018. Prior to this acquisition, the patent US 8,886,536 was assigned to VB Assets, LLC.

Assignment timeline

• 2014-04-30 (executed) / recorded N/A — Reel Not provided in source

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: FREEMAN, TOM; KENNEWICK, MIKE (Inventors)
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not provided in source.
  • Context: Formal assignment of inventorship rights to an affiliated corporate entity.

• 2014-05-01 (executed) / recorded N/A — Reel Not provided in source

  • Conveyance: MERGER
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: Not provided in source.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization via merger.

• 2017-12-22 (executed) / recorded N/A — Reel Not provided in source

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: ORIX GROWTH CAPITAL, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not provided in source.
  • Context: Securitization of the patent portfolio as collateral for financing.

• 2018-04-05 (executed) / recorded N/A — Reel Not provided in source

  • Conveyance: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY
  • Assignor: ORIX GROWTH CAPITAL, LLC
  • Assignee: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: Not provided in source.
  • Context: Release of the security interest; the patent is no longer held as collateral.

• 2018-07-25 (executed) / recorded N/A — Reel 051581/0216 (referencing a later corrective assignment)

  • Conveyance: NUNC PRO TUNC ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not provided in source.
  • Context: Transfer of patent ownership to a likely licensing/assertion entity, preceding the acquisition of VoiceBox Technologies Corp.

• 2019-04-12 (executed) / recorded N/A — Reel Not provided in source

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Assignee: DELPHI ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: Not provided in source.
  • Context: Securitization of the patent portfolio by VB Assets, LLC for financing.

• 2019-06-13 (executed) / recorded N/A — Reel Not provided in source

  • Conveyance: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY
  • Assignor: DELPHI ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
  • Assignee: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not provided in source.
  • Context: Release of the security interest.

• 2020-01-22 (executed) / recorded N/A — Reel Not provided in source

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: VB ASSETTS LLC (recorded with typo)
  • Assignee: NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not provided in source.
  • Context: Apparent transfer to an operating company, potentially an error or a temporary holding, later clarified by a corrective assignment.

• 2020-09-22 (executed) / recorded N/A — Reel Not provided in source

  • Conveyance: CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: VOICEBOX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  • Assignee: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not provided in source.
  • Context: Corrective assignment confirming the transfer of ownership from VoiceBox Technologies Corporation to VB Assets, LLC, superseding or clarifying prior records, including the previous assignment to Nuance. This entry explicitly states it corrects previous recording at Reel: 051581 Frame: 0216, referring to the 2018-07-25 transfer.

• 2025-04-08 (executed) / recorded N/A — Reel Not provided in source

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: VB ASSETS, LLC
  • Assignee: CONTINGENCY CAPITAL FUND A LP
  • Correspondent: Not provided in source.
  • Context: Securitization of the patent portfolio by VB Assets, LLC for financing.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8886536
    2013 : Application filed by VoiceBox
    2014 : Assigned from Inventors to VoiceBox Inc
         : VoiceBox Inc merged into VoiceBox Corp
         : Patent Issued
    2017 : Security interest to ORIX
    2018 : Security interest released
         : Assigned to VB Assets LLC
         : VoiceBox Corp acquired by Nuance
    2019 : Security interest to Delphi
         : Security interest released
    2020 : Apparent assignment to Nuance
         : Corrective assignment to VB Assets LLC
    2025 : Security interest to Contingency Capital Fund A LP

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was assigned to VB Assets, LLC (executed 2018-07-25, Reel 051581/0216 referenced). The name "VB Assets, LLC" is characteristic of a shell entity, and VB Assets, LLC is actively litigating this patent against major technology companies (e.g., Google, Apple, Samsung, SoundHound), as detailed in the litigation summary.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. VB Assets, LLC is the current assignee and is a known patent asserter. They are actively asserting US 8,886,536 in multiple district court cases (e.g., 1:26-cv-00443, 1:24-cv-01368, 1:24-cv-01279, 2:24-cv-00828, 1:19-cv-01410) and have faced PTAB proceedings (IPR2025-00869), which are all listed in the patent's litigation history.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. The provided Google Patents "Legal events" data does not include correspondent attorney names or firms for any of the assignment records, so this signal cannot be assessed.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. While there are several transfers related to internal reorganizations and security interests, there are no multiple consecutive ownership assignments between distinct shell LLCs in a short timeframe that would indicate a typical NPE cascading pattern. The primary ownership transfer from VoiceBox Technologies Corp to VB Assets, LLC is a single step.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment to VB Assets, LLC was executed on 2018-07-25. The first infringement suit involving this patent, VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (1:19-cv-01410), was filed on July 26, 2019. This is approximately one year after the transfer, falling outside the typical 6-month window for a "pre-litigation transfer" signal.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. VoiceBox Technologies Corp. was acquired by Nuance Communications, not involved in a bankruptcy fire-sale where the patent was sold from distressed assets.
7. Privateering — Present. The transfer of the patent from VoiceBox Technologies Corporation to VB Assets, LLC (a likely NPE) was executed on 2018-07-25, just a few months prior to VoiceBox Technologies Corp.'s acquisition by Nuance Communications in October 2018. This timing is highly suggestive that the patent was spun off for assertion by the original owners/investors, rather than being part of the acquisition by an operating company, which is a common privateering-related NPE strategy.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The current assignee, VB Assets, LLC, and the security interest holder, Contingency Capital Fund A LP, are not defensive aggregators like RPX or AST.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The verdict is high confidence due to the presence of multiple strong NPE signals. The patent was transferred to VB Assets, LLC (executed 2018-07-25, Reel 051581/0216 referenced), an entity whose name and extensive litigation activity clearly indicate it is a shell entity and a known patent asserter. Furthermore, this transfer occurred shortly before the original operating company, VoiceBox Technologies Corp., was acquired by Nuance Communications in October 2018, which is a strong indicator of a privateering-related strategy to assert the patent. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8886536/en]

Prior Art Analysis for U.S. Patent 8,886,536

As of May 5, 2026, the following analysis details the most relevant prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 8,886,536 ('536 patent). This analysis examines the references cited by the USPTO examiner and evaluates their potential impact on the patent's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Anticipation).

The '536 patent describes a system that uses a natural language conversation to deliver targeted promotional content. Key aspects of the invention include interpreting a user's spoken utterance in the context of a prior utterance, using different "domain agents" to determine the best interpretation, and then selecting a relevant advertisement. The prior art cited against these claims generally involves voice-based search, targeted advertising, and dialogue management systems.

Here are the most relevant prior art references:

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,725,493 B1 ("Busay")

• Full Citation: US 7,725,493 B1, "Voice-based search with advertising"
• Assignee: Google Inc.
• Publication Date: May 25, 2010 (Filed: July 19, 2007)
• Brief Description: Busay discloses a system for providing advertisements in response to a voice-based search query. A user speaks a query, the system converts it to text, performs a search, and returns search results along with targeted advertisements. The selection of ads can be based on the content of the query and other factors like user location or bidding prices from advertisers. The system can also provide audible advertisements.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: Busay appears most relevant to the general concept of serving ads based on voice input. It teaches receiving a natural language utterance (a search query), processing it, and determining promotional content (advertisements) based on that utterance.
  • Claim 1 & 32: Busay discloses receiving a natural language utterance and presenting promotional content based on an interpretation of that utterance. However, it may not explicitly describe the two-step conversational context ("second natural language utterance relating to the first") or the use of competing "domain agents" to select a final interpretation. The '536 patent's claims are specific about using the context of a first utterance to determine the domain for interpreting a second utterance and using a competitive process between domain agents. Busay's focus is more on a single query-response interaction. Therefore, while highly relevant, Busay likely does not fully anticipate these claims on its own.
  • Claim 37: Busay does not appear to describe a method for resolving ambiguous requests by presenting promotional content and monitoring user interaction with it, which is the core novelty of this claim.

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0288929 A1 ("Pell")

• Full Citation: US 2005/0288929 A1, "Dynamically generating mixed-initiative dialogs for presenting and exploring complex data"
• Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
• Publication Date: December 29, 2005 (Filed: June 28, 2004)
• Brief Description: Pell describes a dialogue management system that can engage in a mixed-initiative conversation with a user to explore complex information. The system can ask clarifying questions and interpret user responses within the context of the ongoing dialogue. It uses a dialogue manager to track context and determine appropriate system responses to guide the conversation.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: Pell is relevant for its focus on maintaining conversational context and managing dialogue flow.
  • Claim 1 & 32: Pell teaches maintaining context across multiple utterances in a dialogue (a "second ... utterance relating to the first"). This is a key element of claim 1. However, Pell's primary focus is on exploring data, not specifically on selecting and presenting promotional content. The claims of the '536 patent require determining and presenting "promotional content" as a direct output. A combination of Pell (for conversational context) and another reference (for advertising) would likely be needed to challenge these claims under an obviousness argument (35 U.S.C. § 103), but it may not directly anticipate them.
  • Claim 33: Pell's system can adapt its understanding based on subsequent user input, which is conceptually similar to the "reinterpretation" described in claim 33. It discloses adjusting the dialogue strategy based on new user utterances. However, the claim's specific application of this reinterpretation to select or change promotional content is likely not taught by Pell.

3. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0022008 A1 ("Plachta et al.")

• Full Citation: US 2007/0022008 A1, "Voice-based advertising"
• Assignee: General Motors Corp., Onstar Corp.
• Publication Date: January 25, 2007 (Filed: July 22, 2005)
• Brief Description: Plachta discloses a system for delivering targeted, voice-based advertisements to users in a vehicle. The system can select ads based on the vehicle's location, the user's destination (from a navigation system), or the content of a user's request (e.g., for a point of interest). It describes an interactive system where a user can respond to an ad with a voice command, for example, to be connected via phone to the advertised business.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is strong on the interactive and targeted nature of voice advertising, particularly in a hands-free context.
  • Claim 1 & 32: Plachta discloses receiving a natural language utterance (e.g., a request for a nearby restaurant), interpreting it, and presenting promotional content (an ad for a specific restaurant) based on that interpretation. Like Busay, it may lack the specific two-utterance conversational context and the competitive domain agent architecture required by the claims. The interaction described is more of a single-turn request and targeted response.
  • Claim 16 & its dependents (17-22): Plachta provides strong support for identifying requests and performing actions. For instance, it describes identifying a request for a navigation route (claim 19) or initiating a call (claim 18) and determining promotional content based on that activity.

4. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0109453 A1 ("Rorex et al.")

• Full Citation: US 2008/0109453 A1, "System and method for targeting advertising based on conceptual correlations"
• Assignee: Yahoo! Inc.
• Publication Date: May 8, 2008 (Filed: November 6, 2006)
• Brief Description: Rorex describes a method for targeting advertisements by identifying concepts within a user's query or viewed content, rather than just keywords. The system builds a "conceptual profile" for the user based on their activities and selects ads that are conceptually related to the user's current context or long-term interests.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: Rorex is relevant for its sophisticated approach to understanding user intent for the purpose of ad selection, moving beyond simple keyword matching.
  • Claim 1 & 32: Rorex teaches a deep "interpretation" of a user's request to determine promotional content. However, it is primarily focused on text-based queries and web content, not necessarily voice utterances in a conversational flow. Furthermore, it does not describe the competitive domain agent architecture.
  • Claim 30 & 31: Rorex strongly supports the elements of obtaining user profile information based on prior interactions and identifying categories of items to select a promotional item. This reference teaches building user profiles based on behavior to better target ads, which aligns well with the limitations of these dependent claims.

Summary of Prior Art Impact

While several references disclose core components of the '536 patent, such as voice-based ad targeting (Busay, Plachta) and conversational context management (Pell), none appear to single-handedly anticipate the independent claims. The novelty of the '536 patent, as defined in the claims, seems to reside in the specific combination of these features:

1. Conversational Context: Using a first utterance to establish a domain for interpreting a second, related utterance.
2. Competitive Interpretation: Employing multiple, competing domain agents to arrive at a final interpretation of the user's speech.
3. Ambiguity Resolution: Proactively using promotional content as a tool to clarify a user's ambiguous request and interpreting the subsequent interaction.

A potential challenge to the validity of the '536 patent would more likely arise from an obviousness argument under 35 U.S.C. § 103, combining teachings from a conversational system like Pell with a voice-advertising system like Busay or Plachta. However, based on the cited references alone, direct anticipation under § 102 appears unlikely for the independent claims. Dependent claims, particularly those related to user profiling (30, 31) and performing specific actions (17-22), face stronger challenges from references like Rorex and Plachta, respectively.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for U.S. Patent 8,886,536

An obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 determines whether the claimed invention, at the time it was made, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This involves identifying a primary prior art reference, finding secondary references that teach missing elements, and articulating a motivation for a PHOSITA to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success. The priority date for US 8,886,536 is February 6, 2007.

The background of US 8,886,536 highlights that existing voice user interfaces often required users to memorize specific syntaxes, failed to engage in productive dialogue, and thus presented "missed opportunities for providing valuable and relevant information to users" and for marketers to reach consumers. This context provides a strong motivation for a PHOSITA to combine existing technologies to improve user interaction and advertising effectiveness in voice recognition systems.

Independent Claim 1 & 32: Method and System for Providing Promotional Content Based on a Conversation

Claim 1 describes a computer-implemented method involving receiving a first natural language utterance, responding, then receiving a second utterance relating to the first. It further specifies performing speech recognition, determining domain information for the second utterance based on the first, processing recognized words using competitive domain agents to determine an interpretation, and finally determining and presenting promotional content based on this interpretation. Claim 32 is the system counterpart.

Combination: Pell (US 2005/0288929 A1) in view of Busay (US 7,725,493 B1) and/or Plachta (US 2007/0022008 A1).

• Pell's Contribution: Pell teaches a dialogue management system that engages in mixed-initiative conversations, maintaining context across multiple utterances. It explicitly addresses receiving a first utterance, responding, and then interpreting subsequent utterances (a "second ... utterance relating to the first") within that ongoing dialogue. This covers the conversational flow elements of Claim 1 (receiving first utterance, providing response, receiving second utterance relating to first, and processing recognized words to determine an interpretation).

• Busay's and Plachta's Contribution: Busay discloses a system for providing advertisements in response to voice-based search queries, selecting ads based on query content and presenting them. Plachta further details delivering targeted, voice-based advertisements, selecting ads based on user requests (e.g., for navigation or points of interest), and enabling user interaction with those ads (e.g., a voice command to connect to an advertised business). Both references clearly teach the "determining promotional content based on the interpretation" and "presenting the promotional content to a user" elements.

• Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA in early 2007, aware of the limitations of existing voice interfaces (as articulated in the '536 patent's background), would be motivated to integrate the robust conversational capabilities of Pell (for understanding user intent across multiple turns) with the voice-based advertising mechanisms of Busay or Plachta. The goal would be to deliver more relevant and highly targeted advertisements by leveraging the deeper contextual understanding gained from an ongoing dialogue, rather than just a single query. Improving the effectiveness of voice advertising through better interpretation of user intent would be a clear business and technical driver.

• Addressing Competitive Domain Agents: While Pell processes utterances in context, it doesn't explicitly detail "competitive domain agents." However, the concept of using domain-specific modules or agents to interpret natural language, and selecting the most probable interpretation from competing possibilities, was known in the art prior to the '536 patent's priority date. The '536 patent itself references earlier VoiceBox patent applications (e.g., US 7,640,160, filed Aug. 5, 2005), which describe domain agents competitively generating context-based interpretations by scoring possible interpretations. Therefore, a PHOSITA integrating a conversational system (Pell) with voice advertising (Busay/Plachta) would naturally employ such known robust interpretation techniques, including using multiple domain agents and selecting the best interpretation through a competitive process, to improve accuracy and relevance in a system designed to handle diverse user requests for advertising purposes.

Therefore, the combination of Pell for conversational context, Busay/Plachta for voice advertising, and the known techniques for competitive domain interpretation in speech processing systems, would render Claims 1 and 32 obvious.

Independent Claim 33: Method for Reinterpreting a User's Statement to Provide Promotional Content

Claim 33 describes a method where, after initial interaction (first and second utterances), a third natural language utterance is received. This third utterance is then used to reinterpret the second utterance, and promotional content is determined based on either the original interpretation or the reinterpretation.

Combination: Pell (US 2005/0288929 A1) in view of Busay (US 7,725,493 B1) or Plachta (US 2007/0022008 A1).

• Pell's Contribution: Pell's dialogue system is designed to adapt its understanding throughout a conversation, modifying its interpretation based on new user inputs. This "adaptive misrecognition" or reinterpretation of prior utterances based on current input is explicitly taught by Pell and further confirmed as known prior art by the '536 patent's own reference to US 7,620,549 (filed Aug. 10, 2005), which focuses on "supporting adaptive misrecognition in conversational speech." This covers the elements related to receiving a third utterance and using it to reinterpret a previous (second) utterance.

• Busay's and Plachta's Contribution: As previously established, Busay and Plachta teach the selection and presentation of promotional content in a voice-based interaction.

• Motivation for Combination: Building upon the motivation for Claim 1 (to deliver more targeted voice ads via conversational context), a PHOSITA would further be motivated to ensure that the promotional content delivered is as accurate and relevant as possible. If a conversational system (Pell) can refine its understanding of a user's intent through reinterpretation based on subsequent dialogue, it would be a natural and obvious step to use this improved understanding to select and present more precise promotional content (from Busay or Plachta). This directly addresses the problem of delivering optimal advertisements in evolving conversational scenarios.

Therefore, the combination of Pell's adaptive conversational capabilities (including reinterpretation) with Busay's or Plachta's voice-based advertisement delivery would render Claim 33 obvious.

Independent Claim 37: Method for Using Promotional Content to Clarify Ambiguous Requests

Claim 37 focuses on situations where a user's request is incomplete or ambiguous. The method involves identifying such a request, determining and presenting promotional content related to it, monitoring the user's interaction with that content, and then interpreting the ambiguous request based on that interaction.

Combination: Pell (US 2005/0288929 A1) in view of Plachta (US 2007/0022008 A1) and/or Busay (US 7,725,493 B1), potentially further informed by Rorex (US 2008/0109453 A1) for conceptual targeting.

• Pell's Contribution: Pell describes a dialogue system designed to handle complex data and ambiguous situations, where it might ask clarifying questions to resolve uncertainty. This encompasses the elements of identifying requests and determining when they are incomplete or ambiguous.

• Plachta's and Busay's Contribution: Both Plachta and Busay disclose determining and presenting promotional content in response to a user's voice input. Plachta, in particular, describes interactive voice advertising where users can respond to ads (e.g., with a voice command), thus implicitly teaching the concept of "monitoring interaction of the user with the promotional content." Rorex further teaches sophisticated ad targeting based on conceptual understanding of user queries and profiles, which could inform the selection of relevant promotional content even for ambiguous requests.

• Motivation for Combination: Facing an incomplete or ambiguous request in a conversational system (Pell), a PHOSITA would be motivated to resolve this ambiguity efficiently and in a user-friendly manner. Instead of simply asking for clarification, a PHOSITA, aiming to enhance user experience and capitalize on advertising opportunities (as per the stated problems in the '536 patent), would combine Pell's ambiguity handling with the interactive voice advertising of Plachta or Busay. By presenting a contextually related advertisement (perhaps using conceptual targeting insights from Rorex) and observing how the user interacts with it (e.g., a follow-up voice command or engagement), the system can infer the user's true intent. The '536 patent explicitly states this motivation: "advertisements may be selected to help in interpreting incomplete and/or ambiguous requests." This innovative use of promotional content as a probe to clarify ambiguous requests, leveraging existing interactive advertising paradigms, would be an obvious application of known technologies.

Therefore, the combination of Pell for handling ambiguous conversational requests, along with Plachta (or Busay) for presenting interactive voice advertisements and monitoring user interaction, would render Claim 37 obvious.